Spring 2018

Jesus and Politics (耶穌政治)

Jonathan W. Lo

“Politics” is an expression that refers to the activities associated with the governance of a
country or area, especially the debate between parties having power.1 Given the
overwhelming number of political implications associated with Jesus’s life, death, and
legacy, it is puzzling that so many contemporary Christians care so little about politics, both
in their faith and daily life.2 Such Christians minimize the political dimensions of Jesus, and in
doing so, ignore the role of politics within their own faith. They focus instead on a Jesus who
is a spiritual savior concerned only with spiritual or ethical matters that are timeless and
other-worldly. Such a view is surely a distortion of the Jesus of the New Testament, who
proclaimed the coming of the “Kingdom of God” (e.g. Mark 1:15) and died on a Roman cross
with the inscription “The King of the Jews” (e.g. Mark 15:16). Many of the Christological
titles used to describe Jesus in the NT also have explicitly political connotations:
Christ/Messiah, Son of God, Son of David, etc.3 Moreover, his earliest disciples were
convinced that God raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to heavenly glory, giving
him the position of “Lord” (e.g. Phil 2:9-11), “Savior of All” (e.g. Acts 10:36), and “Savior of
the World” (e.g. John 4:42). These lofty and political designations, normally reserved for the
Roman emperor, were applied to Jesus without reservation or apology.4 The earliest
Christians also believed that Jesus now sits on God’s throne and will come again to reign
with his angels and to judge the living and the dead.5 For the modern reader to ignore the
real-world implications of the Bible’s spiritual language would be to fundamentally
misunderstand its message, importing a dualistic dichotomy that is not inherent in the text.
Jesus spoke of a kingdom of “heaven,” but he also prayed that this kingdom would come
down, and that God’s will would be done on earth as it is in heaven (Matt 6:10).

1
This essay is developed from a talk I prepared and delivered on Oct 12th, 2017 in Hong
Kong as a part of a series of theological lectures organized by VW Link, entitled: “雨傘運動
後香港教會必須急切反省思考 的十堂課.” I would like to express my gratitude to Dr.
Karen Chi（季小玲博士） for translating my English manuscript. I also want to thank Mr.
Jerry Chow（周沛鍵傳道） for his assistance with reviewing the Chinese manuscript, and
my colleague Dr. Freeman Huen（禤智偉博士) for his insightful comments on early drafts
of the essay.
2
For a book-length treatment of this topic, including a survey of the political situation of the
New Testament era, I highly recommend Alan Storkey, Jesus and Politics: Confronting the
Powers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005).
3
For a full description of the contours of Jewish Messianism, see Matthew V. Novenson, The
Grammar of Messianism: An Ancient Jewish Political Idiom and Its Users (New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 2017); Storkey, Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers, 95–
109.
4
In Phil 3:20, Jesus is referred to as “Lord” and “Savior.” In some ancient inscriptions,
Caesar is proclaimed “the Savior of the World,” as well as “the Savior of Humankind,” and
the “Savior of the Universe.” K. H. Schelkle, “Σωτήρ,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New
Testament, ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard M. Schneider (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004),
3.325-327.
5
Matt 13:41; 25:31; Phil 3:20; 2 Thess 1:5-8; 1 Pet 4:5; Rev 11:15.

1
Spring 2018

While it is true that some of the political language of kingdom/kingship in the Bible is
used to describe a spiritual reality, it would be a mistake to make too sharp of a distinction
between the spiritual and the physical categories, because the two are closely related in
ancient Jewish thinking. The drama of God’s salvation has cosmic significance, but it unfolds
upon the stage of human existence on earth and within history. For first century Jews such
as Jesus, religious hope and expectations, even if they are depicted using heavenly
language, always had earthly implications and consequences. Religious language was also
often used to describe or anticipate geopolitical events. For example, the “new heavens and
the new earth” depicted in Isa 65:17 describes an earthly existence with people building
houses, planting vineyards, and bearing children (Isa 66:21-23). David’s throne and kingdom
are described as in terms of God’s everlasting kingdom, and the Messiah king is called
“Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isa 9:6) Moreover,
Jesus describes the impending destruction of Jerusalem using the apocalyptic language of
“the sun being darkened” and “the stars falling from heaven” (Mark 13:24-25). Similarly, the
book of Revelation attributes earthly disasters and pestilence to four heavenly horses and
riders (Rev 6).

Furthermore, political discourse in the ancient world often included religious

language that speak of deities representing nations and their leaders. James Jeffers notes
that ancient people understood religion to be “an expression of identification with an ethnic
or geographic community.”6 For example, Rome’s earliest principal deity was Numa, and
later, Jupiter became the empire’s first official state god.7 There were also benevolent spirits
associated with certain places known as lares, and some of them were identified with
specific regions and nations. The specific lares that protected the Roman empire were called
Lares Augusti.8 There were also various religious myths and cults associated with powerful
sovereigns. For example, the Egyptians believed that their king was the human
representation of the supreme deity Horus. Some Roman emperors thought of themselves
as divine and demanded sacrifices and devotion from their populace. Emperor Domitian, for
example, insisted on being addressed as “lord and god,” surpassing the reverence normally
given to human beings.9

This is also especially true in the Bible, which often speaks about pagan nations with
reference to their cultic deities. Although the ancient people described in the Bible were
polytheists, there were specific gods specific to regions and people groups: Egypt’s chief
deity was known as Amon, Canaan’s deity is Baal, Babylon’s deity is Bel, whereas the god of
the Philistines was Dagon. In Judges 10:6, the Israelites are condemned for their infidelity to
God by intermingling with foreign people and their gods: “The people of Israel again did
what was evil in the sight of the LORD and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of
Syria, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites, and the gods of the

6
James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the
Background of Early Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), 89.
7
Ibid., 95.
8
Larry W. Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman
World (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), 46; Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of
the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity, 95.
9
Ibid., 101.

2
Spring 2018

Philistines…”10 Furthermore, the Bible would also associate nations and peoples with their
cultic deities. For example, in Jer 51:44, the prophet Jeremiah claims that the God of Israel
will punish the kingdom of Babylon, associating the Babylonian deity Bel with the nation:
“And I will punish Bel in Babylon, and take out of his mouth what he has swallowed. The
nations shall no longer flow to him; the wall of Babylon has fallen.” Likewise, the downfall of
Babylon in Jer 50:2 is depicted with reference to the demise of Babylonian’s deities:
“Babylon is taken, Bel is put to shame, Merodach is dismayed. Her images are put to shame,
her idols are dismayed.’ Of course, ancient Israel’s military victories were also attributed to
the success of Yahweh, who fights Israel’s battles. Psalm 24:8 refers to Israel’s God as
Yahweh the king of glory, who is strong and mighty in battle. While God is the true king of
Israel, Israel’s human king is depicted as God’s representative, who shares God’s throne (Ps
110:1) and whom God calls his Son (Ps 2:7).11 The Jewish people in the first century
expected God to intervene in their struggle against Rome oppression, and there were
speculations that he would accomplish this through a messiah figure, perhaps someone not
unlike Judas Maccabeus, who threw off the tyranny of the Seleucids and established an
independent Jewish state only a hundred years before.12 In any case, the boundary between
the political and the religious spheres was not sharply defined for the people who wrote the
Bible; political realities were explained with religious language, and religious hopes had
political implications.

The NT figure of Jesus is immersed in political language and imagery, but what is the
relationship between Jesus and politics, and what does this have to do with contemporary
Christians? What were Jesus’s political views, and what should be the political views of his
followers today? This essay is an attempt to undertake two challenging tasks—to examine
the political aspects of Jesus in the NT and to outline some political implications for those
who claim to follow him. In rediscovering the political Jesus and understanding his earthly
life from this lens, we will find that the gospel has a sharp political edge, and a message of
hope for the world that requires Christians to be actively engaged in it, both socially and
politically.

Initial Considerations

The following survey of the political aspects of Jesus will include discussions about
his life, teaching, as well as his legacy among his followers. Since Jesus himself did not leave
behind any writings that elucidate his political aims; all reconstructions of his political views
are based on the reports and interpretations of his followers, which may have differing
perspectives and emphases. Our understanding of Jesus and politics must take a historical
and canonical approach, seeking to understand the broad contours of Jesus’ life and
teachings as narrated in the gospels, in relation to the historical context. Moreover, the
writers of the NT believed that God raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to a
heavenly position of “Lord and Savior,” attributing to the risen Jesus divine authority that
transcends all earthly political dominions (Phil 2:9-11). This complicates our discussion of
Jesus and Politics considerably, because how is one to speak meaningfully and appropriately

10
English translations of the Bible used in this essay are taken from the NRSV.
11
E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin Books, 1993), 161.
12
Ibid., 30–31.

3
Spring 2018

about the political ambitions of the divine and transcendent Jesus, the “King of kings” and
“Lord of lords” (Rev 19:16)? If Jesus is God, what else is left to talk about, politically
speaking? What other implications can there be, apart from worship and obedience to God?

The earliest Christians believed that Jesus’ divinity added authority to his teachings
and learned from his life. For example, there is an underlying theme of imitating Christ and
following his example, as can be seen in 1 Cor 11:1 where Paul tells the Corinthians: “Be
imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”13 Likewise, the life and teachings of Jesus is well known
to the early church, as can be seen in passages such as Acts 10:36-39:

As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace
through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what
happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the
baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth
with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and
healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.
And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the
Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a
tree…

This passage mentions Jesus’ earthly ministry, including his preaching, his healings
and exorcisms, and that there were witnesses of what Jesus did in both Galilee and in
Jerusalem. In several of his letters, Paul demonstrates knowledge of Jesus’ teachings and
even bases his arguments upon the Lord’s authority.14 Efforts were made to collect stories
about Jesus’ life and his teachings, to arrange them, and to write them down—these efforts
resulted in the composition of the gospels as we have them. Jesus’ followers continued to
value his life and teachings following his death and resurrection, to the extent that
according to one gospel account, they are to continue to “make disciples” for Jesus and to
teach them everything that he taught them (Matt 28:19-20). The fact that Jesus was
understood to be divine did not inhibit, but rather intensified his followers’ desire to learn
from his earthly life and his teachings, and to model their lives on his character and legacy.

The Politics of Jesus in the New Testament

The purpose of this essay is to examine the politics of Jesus, in order that modern
readers wishing to seek Christian guidance about politics might be better informed and
become inspired towards greater political responsibility and involvement. In many ways, the
political aspects of Jesus’ life are self-evident. All four gospels refer to Jesus as the “Christ,”
a Greek word that meant “Messiah” to a Jewish audience (John 1:41). Matthew’s genealogy
places Jesus in the lineage of king David, the archetypal Israelite king (Matt 1:1). The magi
see a star from the east and come searching for the one born “King of the Jews” (Matt 2:2).
The angel Gabriel tells Mary that her son Jesus will be given the throne of his father David
(Luke 1:31). Jesus’ earthly ministry begins with a proclamation about the arrival of God’s

13
See also 1 Pet 2:21; Phil 2:3-8; 2 Cor 3:18; John 13:34; 2 John 2:6; Eph 4:32; Col 3:13.
14
Cf. On divorce: 1 Cor 7:10-11 // Luke 16:18; On unclean food: Rom 14:14 // Mark 7:18-
19.

4
Spring 2018

kingdom and concludes with his death on a cross with an inscription that read “The King of
the Jews.”15 He gathers around himself a group of twelve disciples, a symbolic number
denoting the twelve ancient tribes of Israel (Matt 3:13-19).16 Jesus had many other
followers as well, many of whom listened as he performed mighty deeds taught them about
life in God’s kingdom.17 His followers also speculated about his political ambitions—some
tried to forcibly make him king (John 6:15), while others waited in anticipation to see what
would happen as he approached Jerusalem with his entourage (Mark 15:43). At his trial, the
governor Pilate asks Jesus whether he is the “King of the Jews,” a threat to Roman stability
in the region.18 The soldiers who torture Jesus, along with the man nailed to the cross
beside him, mock him by acclaiming him to be the “King of the Jews” (Mark 15:18, 32). After
his death and resurrection, his disciples ask if Jesus is going to “restore the kingdom to
Israel” (Acts 1:6), and later proclaim the message that God has appointed Jesus as Christ and
Lord over all (Acts 2:36; 10:36).

In light of this overwhelming data, it is certain that the gospel writers saw Jesus as
the true king, who reigns on behalf of God and whose dominion is not only over Israel but
also the whole world. N. T. Wright argues that Jesus himself must have held this belief: “The
implication is that Jesus saw the coming of the kingdom closely bound up with his own
Messiahship, in own forthcoming death, and the journey to Jerusalem which would
encapsulate both.” 19 It would be difficult to see how the early Church would have arrived at
such a conclusion, had Jesus himself not made any such claims, and if Jesus had not in fact
been raised from the dead. Jesus’ earthly life ended with what can only be described as an
epic political failure on the grandest scale—being rejected by his own people and suffering a
painful and humiliating death at the hands of a foreign oppressive power. If Jesus was
merely a teacher or prophet who did not claim to be the Messiah, how did the early Church
come up with such an idea? And if they did invent the idea of Jesus being a king, who would
believe it?

Furthermore, if Jesus claimed to be king but died without being resurrected, the
Church’s claims would be empty and ineffective (1 Cor 15:14). Crucifixion was a rather
common way for Roman authorities to deal with revolutionaries; in this regard, Jesus’
crucifixion was nothing special. It was the resurrection of Jesus that gave rise to the
Church’s powerful convictions. The early Church understood the resurrection to be God’s
vindication of Jesus against his enemies, and God’s affirmation of Jesus’ proclamation and
his royal identity. Therefore, it is very likely that the historical Jesus made some sort of
Messianic claim. His arrest and execution were based on charges of blasphemy, sedition and
a perceived threat against the Temple; of what we know from the gospel narratives, Jesus
said and did things that his enemies could have twisted and used against him. For example,
Jesus’ claims to be in a privileged relationship with God were used to accuse him of

15
Cf. Mark 1:15; Luke 4:43; Matt 4:17; see also Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 22:28; John
19:19.
16
Beginning with his disciples, Jesus was leading a movement of renewal within Israel. See
especially the work of G. Theissen, The Shadow of the Galilean: The Quest of the Historical
Jesus in Narrative Form, Rev. Ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 2007).
17
Cf. Mark 4:11; Matt 6:10; 12:12; Luke 6:20; 11:20.
18
Cf. Luke 23:3; John 18:33; 19:12.
19
N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996), 651.

5
Spring 2018

blasphemy (Matt 26:65; John 10:33; 19:7). Jesus’ actions in the Temple might have been
seen, at the very least, as causing a disturbance that might give rise to a political revolt
during the busy and crowded festival of Passover (Mark 14:58). On a deeper level, Jesus’
actions were symbolic of God’s final judgment over the Temple and the existing Jewish
authorities.20 Who has the authority to make such a pronouncement except for the
Messiah? Furthermore, Jesus’ teachings about the coming kingdom of God might have been
used to accuse him of treason against the Roman emperor and the existing political
establishment (John 19:12).21

Be that as it may, Jesus was the unlikely “king” of an unconventional “kingdom.” In

John’s gospel, when Pilate asks Jesus if he is a king, he responds by saying that his kingdom
is “not of this world” (John 18:36). Jesus never attempted to pursue a political career—he
was not a politician in any traditional sense. He did not take any of the steps that would
allow him to ascend the political ladder. He was from the Galilean countryside, not
Jerusalem. In fact, he did not stay in any one locale; he was an itinerant who spent much
time in the Jewish villages of Galilee, relying on the hospitality of those who would receive
his message. He had followers but gathered no militia; and those in his entourage were a
motley crew of fishermen, tax-collectors, women, and social outcasts—not the ruling Jewish
elite. In fact, he did not attempt to gain political power by currying favor with the Jewish
aristocracy nor did he lead any revolts against the Romans. Perhaps, to the frustration and
consternation of the Jewish people, Jesus seemed more intent to point out problems within
Israel rather than rebel against the foreign and oppressive Roman regime. Mark’s gospel
records Jesus’ first public act as an exorcism in a Jewish synagogue, and his final act as
turning over tables in the Jerusalem temple. Clearly, the politics of Jesus was not like
anything the Jews were expecting. He was a different kind of king, of a different kind of
kingdom.

A number of scholars point out that at least some of the “Son of Man” expressions in
the gospels are references to the “one like a son of man” figure in the vision of Daniel 7.22 In
this vision, the prophet Daniel sees a world that is in chaos, a world that is turned upside
down. Instead of human beings having dominion over the animals, monstrous beasts now
rule the world. Instead of the animals that God made—each according to its kind—these
beasts are a distorted and perverted hybrid of creation. One is like a lion with eagles’ wings;
another like a leopard with the wings of a bird. These four beasts represent earthly
kingdoms and they are summarily judged by the Ancient of Days, and their dominion is
taken away (Dan 7:9-12). Then, “one like a son of man” comes on the clouds of heaven, and
God gives him “dominion, glory, and a kingdom (Dan 7:13-14). In the vision, the son of man
figure symbolizes Israel, “the saints” who will possess the kingdom (Dan 7:22). The meaning
of the vision is that God’s righteous judgment will end the chaos caused by the beastly rule
of the nations, and that God will appoint the people of Israel to be his chosen rulers.

20
Ibid., 424.
21
Storkey, Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers, 254–258.
22
E.g. Morna D. Hooker, Son of Man in Mark (London: SPCK, 1967); C. F. D. Moule, The
Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Robert S. Snow,
Daniel’s Son of Man in Mark: A Redefinition of the Jerusalem Temple and the Formation of
a New Covenant Community (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016).

6
Spring 2018

However, Israel will not become God’s representatives by being more beastly than the
nations—Israel become God’s representatives by being truly human. The kingdom of God is
not like the dominion of the earthly nations; God’s chosen Messiah is not like earthly kings.
The political aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings are demonstrative of this pattern.

A Different Kind of Kingdom (不一樣的國度)

The first thing to highlight about the kingdom Jesus proclaimed is that even though it is
described as the kingdom of God/heaven, it has an earthly domain.23 In the “Lord’s prayer,”
Jesus teaches his disciples to pray for God’s kingdom to come (Matt 6:10), and in his
preaching he announced that it has indeed come near (Mark 1:14-15). In Matthew’s gospel,
Jesus’ announcement of the arrival of the kingdom is accompanied by an OT text from the
prophetic book of Isaiah, which describes the emergence of a kingly figure who will rule an
unending kingdom from the throne of David, presumably on earth: “Of the increase of his
government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his
kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time
forth and forevermore.” (Isa 9:7; cf. Matt 4:15-16) Matthew uses this Isaiah text to describe
the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in Capernaum of Galilee. In other words, the kingdom of
God that Jesus announces is coming is one that has earthly influence and implications. The
kingdom of God is the dawn of a new and world-changing reality.

Be that as it may, the kingdom of God will be established in a way that is surprising
and counter to the common expectations of the day.24 While the Jewish people were
looking for a powerful and decisive victory against Israel’s enemies, Jesus teaches instead
that God’s kingdom will come gradually and mysteriously. God’s kingdom is like a mustard
seed that is small and unimpressive at the beginning, but in time will grow exponentially
greater (Mark 4:30-32). God’s mighty kingdom will have a humble beginning. The historical
Jesus did not significantly influence the social, political or economic structures of first-
century Palestine.25 There are those who do not understand this and will not receive the
message about such a kingdom (Mark 4:3-8). Jesus uses another agricultural parable to
explain that the growth of God’s kingdom is mysterious but certain; it is like a man who
plants a seed in the ground that grows while he is sleeping. He does not understand why it
grows without his intervention, only that when the grain is ripe he must be ready for the
harvest (Mark 3:26-29). These parables seem to suggest that God’s kingdom will not arrive
at the instigation of human effort—it will only fully come at the time of God’s own
appointment. It is at that appointed time that God will administer justice and separate the
good from the wicked, as the parable of the wheat and tares (Matt 13:24-30) and the
parable of the fishing net (Matt 13:47-50) show. Be that as it may, God will not immediately
intervene to judge in the present; there comes a time when God will act decisively, until the
time of the harvest (Matt 13:30), the time when the net is full (Matt 13:48). This delayed

23
Jonathan W. Lo, “The Beatitudes and the Declaration of God’s Kingdom,” in His Kingdom
and Our World, ed. John Chan (Hong Kong: Institute of Sino-Christian Studies, 2017), 14–
29.
24
Storkey, Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers, 119–123.
25
Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 4.

7
Spring 2018

and gradual establishment of God’s kingdom is counter to the political expectations of many
first century Jews.

Furthermore, life within the kingdom of God that Jesus announces will not merely be
a continuation of the present order of things, but the establishment of a striking reversal of
values and realities.26 Jesus said that in God’s kingdom, many who are “first” will be “last,”
and many who are “last” will be “first.”27 The story of the rich man who is unable to enter
the kingdom (cf. Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30; Matt 19:16-30) is an excellent illustration of
this idea. While there are minor variations in the different gospel versions,28 the core of the
story is about a wealthy, influential, and law-abiding Jew who refuses to renounce his
possessions to follow Jesus. Jesus remarks, to the amazement of his disciples, that it is very
difficult for the wealthy to enter God’s kingdom: “It is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:25) The
disciples cannot understand how someone so successful in the eyes of the world can miss
out on the kingdom. On the other hand, Jesus tells the poor that they are blessed because
the kingdom of God belongs to them (Luke 6:20); he tells the meek who have nothing that
they will inherit the earth. Things in God’s kingdom will be different to what they are now.
Jesus also says that those who appear to be righteous now may not be the ones whom God
considers to be righteous. Jesus spends time with prostitutes, tax-collectors, lepers—the
outcasts of society—and tells them that the good news of God’s coming kingdom also has to
do with them. There will be a mighty reversal when God’s kingdom comes; this is
highlighted in Mary’s song in response to the angel’s message about the birth of Jesus (Luke
1:51-53):

He has shown strength with his arm;

he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.

God brings down the proud and exalts the humble, he feeds the hungry and disregards the
rich. Mary’s song in Luke 1 is reminiscent of Hannah’s song in 1 Sam 2:1-10: “Those who
were full have hired themselves out for bread, but those who were hungry have ceased to
hunger… The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts… He raises the
poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and
inherit a seat of honour.”

The idea of a reversal of fortunes is prominent in Jesus’ teachings about the

kingdom; the people who are first in this present age may not necessarily be first when the
kingdom comes: “The first shall be last, and the last shall be first.” Jesus teaches his disciples

26
Storkey, Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers, 134–140.
27
Matt 19:30; 20:16; Mark 10:31; Luke 13:30.
28
The rich man is variously described as “ruler” in Luke, an “older” man in Matthew, and a
young man in Mark. See Jonathan W. Lo, “Eternal Life in the Synoptic Tradition,” CGST
Journal 52 (2012): 153–172.

8
Spring 2018

that those who wants to be first in the kingdom, must be last of all and servant of all (Mark
9:35). In the story mentioned above about Jesus and the rich man, someone whom the
disciples considered to be “first” does not have a place in the kingdom. But in Matt 20:1-16,
Jesus tells a parable about day laborers, in which those considered by others to be “last”
and unworthy of the kingdom will be shown compassion and receive the same reward as
those who are first. There are many other examples to emphasize this surprising outcome.
In Matt 21:31, Jesus scandalously suggests that the sinful tax collectors and prostitutes are
going into the kingdom ahead of the righteous Pharisees (Matt 21:31). In Luke 18:10, Jesus
tells a story in which God listens to the prayer of the penitent tax collector but not the
prayer of the righteous Pharisee. In the parable of the great banquet in Luke 14:16-24, those
initially invited to the banquet do not attend the banquet; those invited after—the poor, the
crippled, the blind, and the lame—attend the banquet in their place. Likewise, the story of
the Rich Man and Lazarus is a powerful reminder that wealth and privilege in this life has
little importance in the next life. The rich man who enjoyed luxury and comfort suffers
torment after his death, while Lazarus, who suffered in life, enjoys a position by Abraham’s
side. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus proclaims that when God’s kingdom comes, those
who mourn will be comforted, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will be
satisfied, and those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness will enter the
kingdom (Matt 5:4-10). The coming of God’s kingdom will result in societal justice and
economic equality.

Moreover, the kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed is one that is transcultural and
not limited to people of a single ethnicity. Despite Jesus’ portrayal in the gospels as the
“King of the Jews” (Mark 15:2) who will reign from the throne of “his father David” (1:32)
and “judge the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt 19:28), his kingdom is one with cosmic
significance—he is ultimately the “Savior of the world” (John 4:42), the “Son of God who is
coming into the world” (John 11:27), and a repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be
proclaimed in his name “to all nations” (Luke 24:47). Although Jesus’ earthly ministry was
predominantly to the Jewish people, he was also sympathetic to Gentiles, teaching, healing,
and performing miracles in Samaria, Tyre, and Sidon.

All of the gospel writers understood that the implications of Jesus’ ministry extended
far beyond the borders of Israel. In the Temple Incident in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus
proclaims that the Temple was to be a “house of prayer” but has become a “den of thieves”
instead (Mark 11:17). The reference to a “house of prayer” is taken from Isa 56, a passage
about how God will accept the sacrifices of foreigners, and how the Temple is to be a
“house of prayer for all peoples” (Isa 56:7). Matthew uses a passage in Isa 42 to describe the
significance of Jesus’ healing ministry: “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my
beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will
proclaim justice to the Gentiles.” (Matt 12:18) At the conclusion of Matthew’s gospel, Jesus’
followers are commanded to make disciples of all the nations (Matt 28:19). In John’s Gospel,
Jesus tells his disciples that through his death he will draw all people to himself (John 12:32),
including sheep that are “not of this fold”: “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I
must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one
shepherd.” (John 10:16) Although the cosmic significance of Jesus’ reign is implied in each of
the gospels, this theme is especially prominent in Luke’s gospel. In Luke, Jesus’ birth is
described as “good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10), God’s

9
Spring 2018

salvation that will be seen by “all flesh” (Luke 3:6). It is “prepared in the presence of all
peoples” and will be “a light for revelation to the Gentiles” (Luke 2:30-32). This theme is
further developed in the Acts of the Apostles, in which the good news of Jesus is proclaimed
by his disciples “to the ends of the earth.” Paul and Barnabas understand their mission of
preaching the gospel of Jesus to Gentiles in terms of the cosmic vision of God’s reign in Isa
42 and 49: “I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the
ends of the earth.” (Acts 13:47) The kingdom that Jesus inaugurates is not limited by
geography or ethnicity, it includes all people and spans the whole earth.

Finally, the kingdom of Jesus is a kingdom of peace that he believed God would
establish without the need for human beings to resort to violence.29 In fact, Jesus believed
this so much that he allowed his captors to arrest him and he willingly went to the cross.
When Jesus was being arrest, his disciples resisted and fought on his behalf, but Jesus
allowed himself to be captured, saying: “For all who take the sword will perish by the
sword” (Matt 26:52). Jesus believed that through his suffering, by drinking the cup that the
Father gave him to drink (Matt 26:39; Cf. Luke 24:42; John 18:11), God would accomplish
something marvellous; through Jesus’ death God would redeem the lost: “For even the Son
of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark
10:45). The Gospel of Matthew (Matt 21:1-8) narrates the disciples preparing a donkey for
Jesus’ “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem and connects this event with a passage of Scripture
for Zech 9:9: “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and
mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’” Zechariah 9 is an interesting
passage because it is about Israel’s coming king, who is righteous but humble, a king who
brings salvation and promises peace: “I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war
horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace to the
nations; his rule shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.” (Zech
9:10) To the amazement of all, Jesus the king rides into Jerusalem, not as a champion on a
war horse, but on a donkey, declaring peace. When used of political leaders, the description
“humble” denotes compassion and mercy, rather than the exploiting of one’s power.30
Jesus taught and lived out the concept non-violence, preaching instead a message of love
towards one’s enemies, teaching his disciples to bless those who curse them, and to pray for
those who abuse them (Luke 6:28). Jesus’ disciples are to win their enemies over with
intentional, unexpected and disarming acts of love, submission, and humility (Matt 5:38-48).
The kingdom that Jesus announced was not only a kingdom of peace, it would be a kingdom
established through peaceful means.

A Different Kind of King (不一樣的王)

In addition to proclaiming the unexpected arrival of a different kind of kingdom, Jesus was
also a Messiah like no other, redefining what it means to be a king. Jesus tells his disciples
that although the rulers of this present age abuse their power and authority, this is not the
way in the kingdom of God:

29
Storkey, Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers, 141–143.
30
Craig S. Keener, The IVP Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1993), 97.

10
Spring 2018

“You know that those who are considered rulers of the

Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise
authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But
whoever would be great among you must be your servant,
and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all.
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve,
and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42-44)

Jesus sets himself as the paradigm for this new way of life, an “other-centered” existence in
which a person’s worth is measured by how much they are willing to give to serve others. In
John 12:24, Jesus teaches his disciples about the value and meaning of self-sacrifice: “Truly,
truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but
if it dies, it bears much fruit.” Thus, Jesus becomes the model of servanthood for his
followers; anyone who wishes to follow after Jesus must “deny himself” and “take up his
cross” as Jesus did (Mark 8:34). In John 13, Jesus demonstrates his love for the disciples by
washing their feet during supper, humbling himself to serve them even though he is their
teacher. Jesus removes his outer garments, wraps a towel around his waist, and stoops
down to wash each of his disciples’ feet like a common servant. After he had done this,
Jesus reveals to his disciples that this is how they are to treat one another—there is to be no
consideration of one’s own status when serving others:

Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me

Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then,
your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also
ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an
example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.
(John 13:12-15)

Jesus is unique as a kingly figure, because he is a servant who values others more than
himself, and he willingly goes to his death for his people.31 This is a stark contrast to the
common assumption that the king is the most important person, who commands his people
and armies to die for him. The shepherd is a biblical metaphor for those appointed to lead,
protect, and provide for God’s people. But unlike the shepherds that cared for themselves
rather than the flock (e.g. Ezek 34-9), Jesus is the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for
the sheep (John 10:11).

Jesus is also a special kind of king because he does not rule to serve himself or fulfill
his own needs—he was completely obedient to God’s will. In Jer 3:15, God says that one day
he will give Israel “shepherds after my own heart,” who will lead them with “knowledge and
understanding.” Although David, Israel’s ideal king, was called a “man after God’s heart”
(i.e. 1 Sam 13:14; Cf. Acts 13:22), he ultimately abused his power to serve his own selfish
desires, committing adultery with Bathsheba and murdering her husband Uriah. Jesus, on
the other hand, was a faithful and obedient son who trusted God even though he knew it
would result in his death at the hands of his enemies. His prayer in the garden of
Gethsemane on the night of his arrest is a demonstration of his total trust in God’s

31
Storkey, Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers, 172–175.

11
Spring 2018

providence: “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it,
may your will be done.” (Matt 26:42) The biblical narratives are unanimous that Jesus not
only predicted his death but went to his death willingly. In John 10:18, Jesus proclaims: “No
one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.” The author of Hebrews
says that Jesus endured the cross “for the joy set before him,” being seated at the right
hand of the throne of God and becoming the “author and perfecter of our faith” (Heb 12:2).

The temptations of Jesus in the wilderness also reveal his trust in God’s providence,
which enables him to stay obedient even in the face of adversity and great personal need.32
During one of these temptations, Satan tempts Jesus by promising him “all the kingdoms of
the world and their glory” if Jesus would fall down to worship him (Matt 4:8). Jesus is
committed to establishing God’s kingdom, but he will not compromise the kingdom by
doing things Satan’s way. He refuses Satan’s offer and emerges from the wilderness, not
only victorious over the devil, but full of the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:14) and approved as the Son
in whom God delights (Matt 2:17). Jesus’ allegiance is to God alone, from beginning to end,
and it is Jesus alone who is worthy to be called God’s Son, and who will complete the divine
mission of establishing God’s kingdom.

Finally, Jesus is a king like no other because of his compassion for the poor, the weak
and for those ostracised by society. Jesus took particular notice of those on the fringes of
society.33 The gospel of Luke understands Jesus’ ministry to be a fulfilment of Isa 61: “The
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the
poor...” (Luke 4:18) In many of Jesus’ teachings, he shows concern for the poor.34 He
preaches the good news of the kingdom to them: the poor will not be left out of the
kingdom of God, for it belongs to them! (Luke 6:20) Jesus also teaches his followers to take
care of the poor. In Luke’s gospel, Jesus advises a man not to invite those who can repay
him to a dinner or a banquet, but instead, the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,
because God will personally reward him for taking care of the weak and the defenceless.
(Luke 14:12-14) Jesus asks the rich man who wished to inherit eternal life to sell what he
owns to distribute to the poor (Luke 18:22); likewise, Zacchaeus the tax collector, upon
meeting Jesus, gives half of what he possesses to the poor in repentance. In John’s gospel,
when Judas departs from the Last Supper to betray Jesus to the priests, the disciples
thought it was because Jesus had asked him to give something to the poor. (John 13:29) The
coming of God’s kingdom is good news to the poor.

Although no one at the time expected the Jewish Messiah to be a healer or exorcist,
Jesus cured the sick and cast out demons. Jesus seemed to heal especially those with
illnesses that disqualified them from being a part of their community. Jesus approached
those who were considered ritually unclean and “untouchable” with compassion—the
lepers, the man with the withered hand, the woman with the discharge of blood, the
demon-possessed man who lived in the tombs. The blind man outside Jericho must have

32
Jonathan W. Lo, “(Non)Violence in the Bible and the New Testament Vision of Peace,” in
What Non-Violence Is, ed. Andres Tang (Hong Kong: In Press, 2017), 109–112.
33
Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (New York, NY: Oxford University Press,
1989), 200–203.
34
Storkey, Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers, 162–164.

12
Spring 2018

heard about Jesus’ reputation and appealed to his compassion: “Son of David, have mercy
on me!” The miracles that Jesus performed were not characteristic of someone with
political ambitions. A Galilean Jewish scholar named Hanina ben Dosa who lived in the first
century after Jesus was considered a miracle worker by the people.35 According to some
legends, Hanina’s prayers were powerful and he was even known for a variety of healings
and exorcisms.36 However, he was an ascetic holy man, and no Messianic traditions were
ever associated with him. In Jesus’ time, there were other Jewish holy men who attempted
to perform miracles that re-enact supernatural events in Israel’s militaristic history.37 Often,
these were associated with the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan. For example, a figure
known as Theudas assembled followers whom he led to the Jordan River to witness a
miracle of the parting of the waters. Another figure, a prophet known as “the Egyptian,”
told his followers that the walls of Jerusalem would fall if they marched around it. According
to Josephus, the Roman government found out about these potential uprisings and
neutralized these threats with military action.38 While Jesus’ miraculous deeds mostly
comprised healings and exorcisms, some of his miracles attracted the attention of followers
who wanted Jesus to do more politically. In one gospel account, Jesus feeds a hungry crowd
with only five loaves and two fish, with the result that the crowd wanted to make Jesus him
king by force. However, Jesus rejects their attempt to make him king and escapes to the
mountain to be on his own (John 6:14-15). Jesus did not participate in the strictly political
activities of his time; rather, he avoided them. And yet, on the other hand, his activities had
political implications connected to them in a prophetic sense. The disturbance he caused at
the Temple was a religious critique of the political establishment that was centred around
the Temple. The gospel writers likely understood Jesus’ healing to be signs of God’s mighty
deliverance as anticipated in texts like Isa 35:3-6, where the healing of the blind, the deaf,
the lame, and the mute, are symbols of God’s forgiveness and return from Exile.

Much to the consternation of the religious leaders of his day, Jesus also had a
reputation for mingling with those who were social and religious outcasts. He would spend
time with tax-collectors and prostitutes, visiting their homes, eating and drinking with them
(Luke 5:29-30). Some of these outcasts even became his disciples and followers: the disciple
Matthew was once a tax-collector (Matt 9:9); his follower, Mary Magdalene, was once
demon-possessed (Matt 8:2); Simon the leper became a host who later shows Jesus and his
disciples hospitality (Mark 14:3). Jesus also associated with Samaritans; he surprised his
disciples by engaging in a theological dialogue with a Samaritan woman by a well in in a
Samaritan town called Sychar. (John 4:27) Jesus’ followers were a ragtag and unlikely
ensemble of people that others considered unworthy of the kingdom—fishermen, tax
collectors, lepers and women—but these very people Jesus considered to be indispensable
to God’s plans. On the day of the eschatological banquet, the wedding hall will be filled with
guests, and on the instructions of the compassionate master, the guest list will include the
poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame. (Luke 14:21)

35
Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 138.
36
Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, 2nd Ed.
(Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009), 211.
37
Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 139–140.
38
Cf. War 2.261-263; Antiq. 20.97, 167-172.

13
Spring 2018

A Different Kind of Politics (不一樣的政治)

The kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed was not an otherworldly fairytale, but a kingdom
in reality that will impact the present world order. Be that as it may, he did not use
conventional means of pursuing a political career.39 He did not incite rebellion against
Rome, nor did he lobby for political power among the elites in Jerusalem. He did not attack
Herod’s palace, nor did he attempt to curry favor with Roman soldiers. Those with political
power in Jesus’ time might not have recognized Jesus as a political figure to contend with;
his death on the cross as “King of the Jews” is likely intended to be ironic and derisive. The
fact that Pilate executed Jesus without pursuing his disciples, probably means that he did
not see him as a serious political threat.40 However, what Jesus actually did was nothing
short of revolutionary. Jesus described what this kingdom would be like, who gets to be a
part of it, and how one can enter it. He proclaimed the arrival of God’s kingdom and invited
those who embraced his message to become members of a community that lived out the
values of God’s coming kingdom, now and right here on earth.41

Theologically speaking, it is remarkable that Jesus ultimately defeated all worldly

authorities, not by using cunning or power, but by trusting God and obeying God even
though it meant he had to die. Philippians 2:1-11 is a glorious hymn about Christ’s ascension
to the highest place to have dominion over everything “in heaven and on earth and under
the earth,” but Jesus’ actions did not include a political jostling for power; rather, Jesus did
not think of equality with God as something he had to grasp. Jesus humbled himself and was
obedient even unto death. Hebrews 12:2 speaks of Jesus sitting at the right hand of the
throne of God, but he got there by enduring the cross, suffering defeat at the hands of his
enemies. Jesus waited for God to act rather than take the matter into his own hands. As he
mentioned in the parable of the farmer who scatters seed but does not know how the seed
grows: “All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk, then the head, then the full
kernel in the head.” (Mark 4:28) Jesus had enough faith in God to be willing to suffer for the
sake of the kingdom, even if it looked like he was admitting defeat.

The epistle of 1 Peter expounds upon this idea at some length, suggesting that
Christians are to follow Jesus’ example: “…if you suffer for doing good and you endure it,
this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you,
leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.” (1 Pet 2:20-21) Peter says that
Christ died “for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God” (1
Pet 3:18), and that “by his wounds you have been healed.” (1 Pet 2:24) According to 1 Peter,
Christians do not have to be overly concerned with how things might appear to other
people, because there is a reality greater than what is visible. Jesus’ death was not
meaningless, it reconciled people to God. Jesus’ sufferings were not futile, through his
injuries others were healed. Jesus’ surrender to the Roman cross was not a sign of defeat,
but the victory of God over everything. Things are not always as they seem—one has to
remain obedient to God and trust that he will accomplish his purposes. On the contrary,
when one tries to avoid “defeat” and suffering at all costs, they run the risk of employing

39
Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, 224.
40
Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 273.
41
Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 274–275.

14
Spring 2018

Satan’s means to accomplish God’s ends. When Peter tried to dissuade Jesus from going to
his death in Jerusalem, Jesus rebuked him and identified the temptation to take the easier
path as demonic: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have
in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” (Matt 16:23) “Winning at all costs,”
without any regard for the means employed, is a temptation of the devil—there are times
when being faithful to God means accepting defeat in the hope that God will bring about
the final victory without our assistance. Within the Christian worldview, using questionable
means to achieve a godly aim compromises that aim. Jesus, to his dying breath, refused to
use ungodly means to accomplish his godly task.

One day God’s kingdom will come in all its fullness (Cf. Mark 8:38; Matt 16:27), but
Jesus taught his disciples to begin living the life of the kingdom in the present, even while
worldly authorities were still in charge.42 Jesus taught that it was possible in some cases to
co-exist with imperfect governments and still strive to be faithful to God with one’s life. In
Mark 12:14-17, some of the Pharisees and Herodians attempted to trap Jesus into telling
people not to pay taxes to Caesar. To their amazement, Jesus gave clever response which
enabled a pious Jew to continue paying taxes to Rome and remain loyal to God. Jesus’ logic
was that since the denarius coin contains the emperor’s image, that it belonged to Caesar.
But since human beings are made in God’s image, people belong to God.43 Caesar might be
able to extract taxes and produce from the Jewish people, but their ultimate allegiance is
not for sale—it belongs to God alone. Under Roman occupation, soldiers had a right to force
Jewish peasants to perform manual labor; often this would mean having to carry the
soldier’s equipment for as far as a “mile.”44 However, Jesus said that even under such a
situation of forced labor a person’s will remains their own. That person can choose to do
something extraordinary and carry the soldier’s load for an additional mile. That person is
immediately transformed from a helpless victim to someone choosing to demonstrate love
to an enemy; the enemy is transformed into a neighbor in need of help. Jesus’ disciples
were to be a countercultural community based on the principle of loving even enemies that
Jesus himself embodied.45

A system of politics derived from Jesus’ teachings would be one that is non-violent,
non-retaliatory, and compassionate, even towards one’s enemies.46 Jesus was not only
supportive of paying taxes to Caesar, he was also kind to those who worked for the foreign
oppressors. Jesus had a reputation for associating with tax collectors (Mark 2:15; Luke 5:27);

42
鄧紹光, 政治中的教會 (香港: 基道, 2015), 39–41, 60.
43
William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974),
425.
44
R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 221–222.
45
Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, 2nd Ed., 212. See also, 鄧
紹光, 政治中的教會, 105–108.
46
Lo, “(Non)Violence in the Bible and the New Testament Vision of Peace”; Jonathan W.
Lo, “Sharing the Blessing of the Peacemaker: An Exegetical Analysis of Matt 5:9,” Hill Road
33 (2014): 51–73; T. R. Yoder Neufeld, Recovering Jesus: The Witness of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2007), 205–220; A. Trocmé, Jesus and the Nonviolent
Revolution, Rev. Ed., ed. C. E. Moore (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2003); J. H. Yoder, The
Politics of Jesus, Rev. Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994).

15
Spring 2018

he heals the servant of a Roman centurion (Matt 8:5-13). The resolve and will of the people
of God cannot be broken by human laws, one can always strive to obey God regardless of
the situation. In general, Jesus permits submission to earthly authorities while remaining
loyal to God. Of course, in times when obeying human authorities means that one has to
disobey God, the NT is clear that one’s ultimate loyalty is always to God (“We must obey
God rather than men!” Acts 5:29). However, Jesus clearly teaches that there are occasions
when one can obey both God and men, and that making the most of such opportunities
requires wisdom, discernment, and creativity.

Implications for Today

What are the practical implications of the “politics of Jesus,” as described above, for the
contemporary Christian? Is Christian political engagement a biblical idea, and if so, what
does it look like? Should Christians be involved in politics or work for the government? In
this concluding section, I will provide some suggestions for how the “politics of Jesus” might
be used to inform modern day decisions regarding political engagement and offer some
brief remarks to stimulate further reflection and action.47

First, while Jesus was not a politician—according to either ancient or modern

understandings of the term—this is not a good reason for Christians to be disengaged from
caring about their society and or seeking to improve the lives of those around them. I agree
strongly with Cornelis Van Dam’s contention that: “The Bible makes clear that Christians
should get involved politically; that is, they should seeek to influence the current political
scene and the direction and life of their city or town, state or province, and nation.”48 Jesus
cared about the lives of people, especially those who were needy and ostracized; even
though the kingdom he proclaimed had yet to arrive completely, Jesus was already tending
to the needs of the poor and the sick. The kingdom of God is yet to fully come, but through
the presence and actions of Jesus it has also already arrived (Luke 11:20). It would be
negligent for Christians to ignore the opportunity to continue Jesus’ work of the kingdom if
such opportunities exist. The coming of the kingdom of God has earthly consequences, and
Christians should wisely explore all the channels available, even political ones, to accomplish
kingdom objectives—provided that they are in keeping with the teaching and life of Jesus.
Some Christians believe that one either has to fully support one’s government or otherwise
be completely against it. However, Jesus neither advocated open rebellion against the
government nor blind submission. For Jesus, there was a third way between the two
extremes of revolt and obedience.

Second, while there is no perfect political system of governance, this does not mean
that Christians cannot co-exist as citizens of heaven as well as their earthly locales. Jesus’
approach was not to immediately replace the existing political system through warfare or
revolt to establish a Jewish state. Jesus did not try to overthrow the Roman government.
Instead he waited for God to act and to bring about political change when the time was

47
I would like to thank those who attended my lecture on this topic. The reflections offered in
this section are based on conversations during the Q&A session.
48
Cornelis Van Dam, God and Government: Biblical Principles for Today: An Introduction
and Resource (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 225.

16
Spring 2018

right. Nor did Jesus believe that one cannot begin to live by the ethics of God’s kingdom
until the present world order was destroyed. Jesus preached an apocalyptic message; he
was convinced that God was about to do something powerful and decisive in his midst.
However, one does not need to wait for God’s kingdom to come in fullness before they start
living as citizens of that kingdom. It is a case of “both and” rather than “either or.” A good
example is the Apostle Paul’s dual-citizenship; he was a citizen of Tarsus, as well as a citizen
of Rome.49 In Phil 3:20, Paul writes to the Philippian church, reminding the inhabitants of
Philippi that although they were citizens of Rome, their true citizenship is in heaven, and
they are awaiting the arrival of their true lord and savior from there: Jesus Christ. Paul
encourages them to live out the identity of their heavenly citizenship right there in Philippi
(Phil 1:27). This appears to be Jesus’ principle as well—to live as dual-citizens as best one
can until God’s dominion is finally established on earth. This means that no matter how
ideal or imperfect an earthly system of governance may be, it cannot be seen as the end
goal. God’s kingdom cannot be equated with any one country’s sovereignty; it stands above
earthly authorities. For this reason, even a perfectly administered system of democracy is
still a great distance from the ideal situation where God is king—Christians must always
maintain this distinction and not treat one country or system of governance as though it is
equivalent to God’s rule. No Church, and certainly no Christian state, is equivalent to the
Kingdom of God, it is only ever a “deeply flawed” and “conflicted approximation” of the
kingdom to come.50

If this is true, the highest good for Christians seeking to engage in politics is not
democracy, but faithfulness to Jesus. This might mean seeking the protection and welfare of
each of our neighbors through a system of democracy, but it might also mean pursuing
these same goals using other means. Democracy is good, but it is not the ultimate good—
throughout history many scores of Christians have managed to maintain their loyalty to God
despite the political system of the day, whether it is democracy, communism, monarchy, or
dictatorship. And many people, Jesus included, were not able to choose the system of
governance that they most preferred, but nonetheless succeeded in being faithful to God
within their political contexts. Christians who live in a democracy have an obligation to
participate in it and let the Christian voice be heard.51 For Christians living under a
totalitarian regime, perhaps their goal should be to influence that political system so that it
becomes more closely aligned to Christian ideals and values, rather than trying to
democratize the State, which may or may not be possible. I do not wish to undermine the
value of democracy; the people’s ability to keep their governments accountable is an
enormous benefit that few other political systems can provide. My own personal preference
is a political system in which the people who are affected by an important decision have a
say in the process of making that decision. I believe democracy to be the political system
that best allows for this to happen. However, this is my personal preference and not a
biblical teaching. Christians should acknowledge that no earthly system of governance is

49
F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 32–
40.
50
John G. Stackhouse, Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World (New York,
NY: Oxford University Press, 2008), 22.
51
Van Dam, God and Government: Biblical Principles for Today: An Introduction and
Resource, 230.

17
Spring 2018

perfect, and that their highest call is to be faithful to Jesus, whatever their political
affiliation.

Finally, Jesus’ life and teachings can and should inform Christian perspectives about
all sort of issues, including politics. Jesus was not a politician, but neither was he a parent,
nor a spouse, nor a businessman. However, it is not unusual for Christians to apply Jesus’
various teachings to their own situations, whether it is parenthood, marriage, or business
ethics and practices. For this reason, the teachings and life of Christ should also influence
the way Christians think about and participate in politics. Particularly for those living within
a democratic system of governance where different voices are valued and heard, Christians
should absolutely engage in politics.52 In moments where there are conflicts of interest
between loyalty to God and loyalty to the State, the Christian must choose to be obedient to
God. However, I believe that any government with a genuine and significant Christian
influence is a better government because of it—those with the ability and opportunity to
serve in government should strive to be faithful to Jesus in their work and use their position
to demonstrate why Christian values and principles are beneficial to the public, and how the
Christian perspective is essential for building a more compassionate, just, and humane
society. For those who believe, the politics of Jesus is a compass pointing towards a better
way to live and a godlier way to govern. It is a source of strength and hope for the
oppressed and a sobering reminder to those in power that a day is coming when God will
hold everyone accountable, undoing every wrong and putting all things alright.

52
For example, John Stackhouse, Jr. sets out the following series of governing principles
based on Jesus’ kingdom values: 1) Dialective without capitulation, 2) transformation
without imperialism, 3) plurality without relativism, conviction without hubris. See
Stackhouse, Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World, 350–356.

18